They are not 'vulnerable' and you are not a 'charity'.

Thousands of vulnerable children and families are being left without access to vital services because of the government cuts, according to one of the country's biggest children's charities.

What makes a vulnerable child? What makes a vulnerable family? What makes a vital service? What makes a charity?

Action for Children surveyed 200 of their frontline projects to assess the impact of the cuts, a year on from the comprehensive spending review, writes Channel 4 News Social Affairs Editor Jackie Long.
It found 68 per cent of frontline children's services have had their budgets cut, while at the same time almost half say demand for their services has risen sharply.

An NGO funded by the taxpayer does not make a charity. Action for Children is just such a fake charity, who who apparently are feeling the pinch of Government cuts. A pinch is not good enough though, funding for all these so called charities needs to be stopped immediately. If thier services are vital, voluntary donation will pick up the tab.

And it issued this stark warning - that 5,000 children and families in need of help, are not able to get it.

The report will make difficult reading for the prime minister (He can read? Ed.), David Cameron. He made clear from the beginning of his time as Tory leader his belief that a good society always protects the poorest and most vulnerable.

See what you are missing there, AFC? A good society. That does not mean taking money from taxpayers by force and handing it over to you.

The project runs a range of early intervention projects dealing with everything from runaways, to parenting problems and courses for children with behavioural problems. Two have had their local authority funding halved, one has had it scrapped altogether.

The mentoring project they run for children running into trouble at home and at school because of bad behaviour is a good example, she says, of critical early intervention.

Bad behaviour does not make a vulnerable child. Bad parenting does not make a vulnerable family.

Parents need to take back responsibility for their own children. Raising a child, disciplining them properly, teaching right from wrong and good behaviour is all the job of the parent. The state has no business sticking it's nose in these areas, whatever guise it assumes.

The last Government have a lot to answer for when we talk of problem families. They told parents that they were not allowed to properly discipline their children in the form of a smack, while teaching everybody that responsibility for your own actions does not lie with yourself but with the state, and that children somehow have 'rights' that the parents must recognise.

This is what needs to be changed. The taxpayer should not be forced to step in with when parents fail in their responsibilities.

Joanne Connolly, whose son Jaden has been through the programme, agrees. Jaden became withdrawn and aggressive while battling with problems at school. When his parents tried to talk to him, he would lash out. He often ended up lashing out at his sister or trashing his room.
Joanne says without the mentoring programme, she dreads to think where he would have ended up.
"He could have taken it onto the street," she told Channel 4 News. "As it gets older it can get worse. They can end up as criminals. If they don't get that help when they need it - how far is it going to go?"

Joanne - When your child needs help and mentoring, that should come directly from you, not from a Government third party. You have obviously failed in certain areas as a parent while raising your child, correcting this needs to come from yourself. Abandoning him to the state and absolving yourself of all blame and responsibility is a prime example of terrible parenting.

Mentoring projects for naughty children and bad parents do not make a vital service.

The government too believes that early intervention is crucial. But on the cuts, it said today that it's up to local authorities to decide how to spend their money

Whose money?

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...